2.0 Introduction

In Chapter One, we traced the religious origins of capitalism and revealed how it was initially driven by a “non-possessive” ethic centered on glorifying God. This spiritual foundation helped fuel early economic prosperity. However, history did not sustain this original intent. As religious faith receded from public life, capitalism gradually detached itself from its moral roots and evolved into a system dominated by the logic of “absolute ownership.” This shift eroded the early spiritual pillars of capitalism and gave rise to systemic inequality, resource waste, and crises of trust—including the recurring economic downturns that have become inherent to this model. Today, this paradigm has reached its limits and can no longer sustain itself.In Chapter One, we traced the religious origins of capitalism and revealed how it was initially driven by a “non-possessive” ethic centered on glorifying God. This spiritual foundation helped fuel early economic prosperity. However, history did not sustain this original intent. As religious faith receded from public life, capitalism gradually detached itself from its moral roots and evolved into a system dominated by the logic of “absolute ownership.” This shift eroded the early spiritual pillars of capitalism and gave rise to systemic inequality, resource waste, and crises of trust— including the recurring economic downturns that have become inherent to this model.

Today, this paradigm has reached its limits and can no longer sustain itself.

 This chapter explores how capitalism has degenerated from a non-possessive ethic into a logic of unlimited accumulation. We will focus on the alienating power of “ownership” and how it transforms wealth into a tool for vanity, control, and oppression. Using platform economies as examples—such as Uber and Airbnb—we examine how modern “sharing” platforms continue to perpetuate exploitative capitalist mechanisms under the guise of technological advancement. Furthermore, we compare the structural dilemmas within both socialist and capitalist systems, arguing that as long as “possession” remains the sole legitimate form of wealth, society will remain trapped in cycles of crisis and class antagonism. On the other hand, abolishing private property entirely often results in proxy ownership, inefficiency, and large-scale waste.This chapter explores how capitalism has degenerated from a non-possessive ethic into a logic of unlimited accumulation. We will focus on the alienating power of “ownership” and how it transforms wealth into a tool for vanity, control, and oppression. Using platform economies as examples—such as Uber and

Airbnb—we examine how modern “sharing” platforms continue to perpetuate exploitative capitalist mechanisms under the guise of technological advancement. Furthermore, we compare the structural dilemmas within both socialist and capitalist systems, arguing that as long as “possession” remains the sole legitimate form of wealth, society will remain trapped in cycles of crisis and class antagonism. On the other hand, abolishing private property entirely often results in proxy ownership, inefficiency, and large-scale waste.

Ultimately, we propose a new path that transcends the binary of public vs. private ownership: non-possession. This model does not aim to abolish ownership but to institutionalize ethical and structural limits on it. By re-integrating economic activity into a framework of public trust and sacred responsibility, modern society can rebuild a moral foundation at the institutional level—resolving the growing tensions between corporations, consumers, and the public good.Ultimately, we propose a new path that transcends the binary of public vs. private ownership: non-possession. This model does not aim to abolish ownership but to institutionalize ethical and structural limits on it. By re-integrating economic activity into a framework of public trust and sacred responsibility, modern society can rebuild a moral foundation at the institutional level—resolving the growing tensions between corporations, consumers, and the public good.

2.1 : The Alienating Power of the "Ownership Supremacy" Logic

One of the most profound and destructive shifts in the evolution of capitalism is the transformation of “ownership” from a practical means into the ultimate end in itself. This logic gradually detached itself from its original ethical constraints, stripping wealth of its

sacred mission to glorify God and serve the community, and reconstituting it as a symbol of personal interest, social display, and control over others.One of the most profound and destructive shifts in the evolution of capitalism is the transformation of “ownership” from a practical means into the ultimate end in itself. This logic gradually detached itself from its original ethical constraints, stripping wealth of its sacred mission to glorify God and serve the community, and reconstituting it as a symbol of personal interest, social display, and control over others.

Initially, the Protestant ethic promoted the spirit of “use without possession,” where wealth was seen as a spiritual entrustment—a result of divine blessing to be used responsibly in accordance with God’s will. In modern capitalism, however, this faith-based foundation has largely collapsed, replaced by a purely quantitative logic of wealth: the more one owns, the higher one’s status; the greater one’s assets, the stronger one’s control. Ownership itself has morphed from a means into an end, even becoming the ultimate proof of success. This value orientation of “ownership supremacy” has bred a distorted system of social recognition and psychological drive, pushing individuals toward endless greed, anxiety, and competition.Initially, the Protestant ethic promoted the spirit of “use without possession,” where wealth was seen as a spiritual entrustment—a result of divine blessing to be used responsibly in accordance with God’s will. In modern capitalism, however, this faith-based foundation has largely collapsed, replaced by a purely quantitative logic of wealth: the more

one owns, the higher one’s status; the greater one’s assets, the stronger one’s control. Ownership itself has morphed from a means into an end, even becoming the ultimate proof of success. This value orientation of “ownership supremacy” has bred a distorted system of social recognition and psychological drive, pushing individuals toward endless greed, anxiety, and competition. (Weber, 1905)

More critically, this logic has infiltrated the deep structures of institutions, education, and culture, establishing a system that legitimizes the pursuit of unlimited accumulation. In such a system, enterprises are no longer primarily motivated by meeting social needs, but by capturing markets, suppressing competitors, and expanding control. Individuals no longer aim for sufficiency or satisfaction but are trapped in the endless chase for assets, status, and symbolic affirmation.More critically, this logic has infiltrated the deep structures of institutions, education, and culture, establishing a system that legitimizes the pursuit of unlimited accumulation. In such a system, enterprises are no longer primarily motivated by meeting social needs, but by capturing markets, suppressing competitors, and expanding control. Individuals no longer aim for sufficiency or satisfaction but are trapped in the endless chase for assets, status, and symbolic affirmation.

The alienating logic of “ownership supremacy” lies at the core of today’s institutional crisis. It destroys trust among individuals, shifting society from win-win collaboration to zero-sum competition. It erodes the public nature of resources, turning nature, labor, and knowledge into objects to be manipulated and exploited. It disrupts the spiritual order of humanity, leaving people lost in the pursuit of ownership with no clear sense of purpose. This transformation of capitalism is not only a moral downfall but a systemic disintegration,

signaling a crisis of civilization.The alienating logic of “ownership supremacy” lies at the core of today’s institutional crisis. It destroys trust among individuals, shifting society from win-win collaboration to zero-sum competition. It erodes the public nature of resources, turning nature, labor, and knowledge into objects to be manipulated and exploited. It disrupts the spiritual order of humanity, leaving people lost in the pursuit of ownership with no clear sense of purpose. This transformation of capitalism is not only a moral downfall but a systemic disintegration, signaling a crisis of civilization.

To overcome this alienation, we need more than moral appeals—we must redefine ownership itself. Wealth must be re-embedded in systems of trust and ethical use. Only by institutionalizing the normative boundaries of “non-possession” can we curb the trend of ownership becoming a hegemonic value and restore economic life to its rightful ethical and communal purpose.To overcome this alienation, we need more than moral appeals—we must redefine ownership itself. Wealth must be re-embedded in systems of trust and ethical use. Only by institutionalizing the normative boundaries of “non-possession” can we curb the trend of ownership becoming a hegemonic value and restore economic life to its rightful ethical and communal purpose.

2.2   The Path of Wealth Alienation: Conspicuous Consumption, Control, and Power

In the early days of capitalism, wealth was viewed as a manifestation of divine favor—a tangible reflection of diligence, frugality, and a sense of calling. However, as the spiritual foundation eroded, the meaning of wealth underwent a profound alienation. From being “used for God” to being “used for self,” wealth became a tool for flaunting status, satisfying vanity, controlling others, and ultimately pursuing power. This trajectory of alienation has transformed resources that could serve society into fuel for human desire.In the early days of capitalism, wealth was viewed as a manifestation of divine favor—a tangible reflection of diligence, frugality, and a sense of calling. However, as the spiritual foundation eroded, the meaning of wealth underwent a profound alienation. From being “used for God” to being “used for self,” wealth became a tool for flaunting status, satisfying vanity, controlling others, and ultimately pursuing power. This trajectory of alienation has transformed resources that could serve society into fuel for human desire.

First, conspicuous consumption emerged as the initial symptom of this alienation. In societies lacking spiritual constraints, individuals increasingly sought identity and recognition through material possessions. “What I am” gave way to “what I have,” turning consumption into a symbolic game of class distinction. Amplified by social media, this display-driven behavior has intensified anxiety and social comparison, making “having” the prerequisite for “being.”First, conspicuous consumption emerged as the initial symptom of this alienation. In societies lacking spiritual constraints, individuals increasingly sought identity and recognition through material possessions. “What I am” gave way to “what I have,” turning consumption into a symbolic game of class distinction. Amplified by social media, this display-driven behavior has intensified anxiety and social comparison, making “having” the prerequisite for “being.”

Second, wealth morphed into a tool of control. When possession becomes the end, people naturally seek to use wealth to dominate others—whether through employment, investment, monopoly, or institutionalized pricing power and market control. This

“possessive control” breaches the ethical boundaries of free exchange, reducing people from autonomous agents to instrumental means.Second, wealth morphed into a tool of control. When possession becomes the end, people naturally seek to use wealth to dominate others—whether through employment, investment, monopoly, or institutionalized pricing power and market control. This “possessive control” breaches the ethical boundaries of free exchange, reducing people from autonomous agents to instrumental means.

Ultimately, wealth becomes power itself. Capital accumulation turns into a shortcut to political influence, and the line between wealth and governance blurs. The revolving door between corporate giants, financial capital, and political regimes illustrates how “those who own resources” effectively become “those who make the rules.” This process betrays the original spiritual intent of wealth as a tool of service and instead constructs a new form of monetary theocracy.Ultimately, wealth becomes power itself. Capital accumulation turns into a shortcut to political influence, and the line between wealth and governance blurs. The revolving door between corporate giants, financial capital, and political regimes illustrates how “those who own resources” effectively become “those who make the rules.” This

process betrays the original spiritual intent of wealth as a tool of service and instead constructs a new form of monetary theocracy.

This alienation leads to the erosion of human essence. Human beings themselves become alienated. The heart of this process lies in shifting life’s meaning from glorifying God through disciplined labor to extracting wealth and power—ultimately transforming the self into an embodiment of power itself. This paves the way for the worship of force, the rise of class hostility, and structural oppression. Capitalism without faith loses its foundation, and the system itself degenerates into a regime of materialism and control. This tendency has grown particularly severe in the post–Cold War West, where the absence of spiritual restraint and external threats has accelerated the collapse of inner discipline. Faithless humanity inevitably regresses to animality, and animality expresses itself in systems of control. The logical conclusion of controlism is already prefigured in the following experiment.This alienation leads to the erosion of human essence. Human beings themselves become alienated. The heart of this process lies in shifting life’s meaning from glorifying God through disciplined labor to extracting wealth and power—ultimately transforming the self into an embodiment of power itself. This paves the way for the worship of force, the rise of class hostility, and structural oppression. Capitalism without faith loses its foundation, and the system itself degenerates into a regime of materialism and control. This tendency has grown particularly severe in the post–Cold War West, where the absence of spiritual restraint and external threats has accelerated the collapse of inner discipline. Faithless humanity inevitably regresses to animality, and animality expresses itself in systems of control. The logical conclusion of controlism is already prefigured in the following experiment.

“Mouse Utopia” and the Foretold Future

Even before the full unfolding of wealth alienation in human society, a chilling parable had been enacted in the laboratory of behavioral science. In the 20th century, animal

behaviorist John B. Calhoun conducted an experiment widely known as the “Mouse Utopia.” In it, a group of mice was provided with abundant food, water, and habitat—eliminating natural scarcity. Yet instead of producing harmony and flourishing, the population

descended into collapse through a phenomenon he termed “behavioral sink.” A few dominant mice monopolized resources, controlling access to food and space. Weaker mice were pushed to the periphery, unable to survive, eventually dying in large numbers.Even before the full unfolding of wealth alienation in human society, a chilling parable had been enacted in the laboratory of behavioral science. In the 20th century, animal behaviorist John B. Calhoun conducted an experiment widely known as the “Mouse Utopia.” In it, a group of mice was provided with abundant food, water, and habitat—eliminating natural scarcity. Yet instead of producing harmony and flourishing, the population descended into collapse through a phenomenon he termed “behavioral sink.” A few dominant mice monopolized resources, controlling access to food and space. Weaker mice were pushed to the periphery, unable to survive, eventually dying in large numbers.

This experiment unveils a disturbing truth: even in a world of material plenty, if power over distribution and ownership is left unchecked, social systems rapidly degenerate into inequality and destruction. In this miniature society, food was abundant, but the right to allocate became the true determinant of life and death. In capitalist terms, this allocation power is equivalent to the hyper-concentration of ownership. The strong grow stronger by commanding resources; the weak grow weaker through deprivation—thus forming a self- reinforcing monopoly loop.This experiment unveils a disturbing truth: even in a world of material plenty, if power over distribution and ownership is left unchecked, social systems rapidly degenerate into inequality and destruction. In this miniature society, food was abundant, but the right to allocate became the true determinant of life and death. In capitalist terms, this allocation power is equivalent to the hyper-concentration of ownership. The strong grow stronger by commanding resources; the weak grow weaker through deprivation—thus forming a self-reinforcing monopoly loop.

The tragedy of the mice is a microcosm of capitalism’s trajectory: conspicuous consumption, control as power, and structural oppression. When wealth ceases to be a sacred entrustment and becomes a vehicle for displaying superiority, manipulating others, and dominating society, no amount of material abundance can compensate for the collapse of

spiritual and ethical foundations.The tragedy of the mice is a microcosm of capitalism’s trajectory: conspicuous consumption, control as power, and structural oppression. When wealth ceases to be a sacred entrustment and becomes a vehicle for displaying superiority, manipulating others, and dominating society, no amount of material abundance can compensate for the collapse of spiritual and ethical foundations.

Therefore, Non-Possessive Economics must address not merely the redistribution of wealth, but the reconstruction of its meaning. Only by re-embedding wealth into ethics and faith, and redefining it as a resource entrusted—not possessed—can we break this chain of alienation.Therefore, Non-Possessive Economics must address not merely the redistribution of wealth, but the reconstruction of its meaning. Only by re-embedding wealth into ethics and faith, and redefining it as a resource entrusted—not possessed—can we break this chain of alienation.

2.3   The Problems of Platform Economy: The Extractive Models of Uber and Airbnb

In the course of capitalism’s digital transformation, the platform economy was once heralded as a decentralized structure that empowered individuals. However, as capital re- concentrated under new technological regimes, the ideal of the “sharing economy” has devolved into a new mechanism for control and labor extraction. Platforms like Uber and Airbnb have technically disrupted traditional employment models, but they have failed to restructure the underlying ownership of profits—in fact, they have entrenched new

asymmetries of exploitation.In the course of capitalism’s digital transformation, the

platform economy was once heralded as a decentralized structure that empowered individuals. However, as capital re-concentrated under new technological regimes, the ideal of the “sharing economy” has devolved into a new mechanism for control and labor extraction. Platforms like Uber and Airbnb have technically disrupted traditional employment models, but they have failed to restructure the underlying ownership of profits—in fact, they have entrenched new asymmetries of exploitation.

Uber, a prototypical mobility platform, recruits drivers under the premise of flexible “partnerships,” yet constructs a highly oppressive labor structure governed by platform algorithms and incentive systems. Drivers own neither customer data nor the ability to negotiate pricing; they are instead forced to compete within an opaque framework of ratings and dispatch algorithms. This creates a form of "invisible boss"—a controlling force without corresponding social protections or guaranteed minimum income.Uber, a prototypical mobility platform, recruits drivers under the premise of flexible “partnerships,” yet constructs a highly oppressive labor structure governed by platform algorithms and incentive systems. Drivers own neither customer data nor the ability to negotiate pricing; they are instead forced to compete within an opaque framework of ratings and dispatch algorithms. This creates a form of "invisible boss"—a controlling force without corresponding social protections or guaranteed minimum income.

Similarly, while Airbnb promotes itself as a platform for sharing idle housing, it has long been dominated by professional landlords and real estate capital. Entire urban neighborhoods have been transformed into quasi-hotel zones, displacing long-term residents due to rising rents and community disruption. While the platform earns high commissions, the original promise of equitable resource use is betrayed—wealth becomes even more concentrated in urban space, and mobile labor is stripped of its rights.Similarly, while Airbnb promotes itself as a platform for sharing idle housing, it has long been dominated by professional landlords and real estate capital. Entire urban neighborhoods have been transformed into quasi-hotel zones, displacing long-term residents due to rising rents and community disruption. While the platform earns high commissions, the original promise of equitable resource use is betrayed—wealth becomes even more concentrated in urban space, and mobile labor is stripped of its rights.

At a deeper level, the platform’s profit model is based on a paradox: “connection without possession.” Although platforms claim not to own physical assets, they exert absolute control over the two most valuable assets in the digital age—traffic and trust. In the absence of a non-possessive ethical framework, this type of connection turns into a more intense form of control. It is not decentralization—it is the rise of a new center.At a deeper level, the platform’s profit model is based on a paradox: “connection without possession.” Although platforms claim not to own physical assets, they exert absolute control over the two most valuable assets in the digital age—traffic and trust. In the absence of a non-possessive ethical framework, this type of connection turns into a more intense form of control. It is not decentralization—it is the rise of a new center.

Why, then, do platforms seek to amass so much power and resource? Because although they appear asset-light and connection-focused, their governance logic remains unchanged: ownership and profit-maximization still reside in the hands of founding teams and capital investors. The broader logic of the capital market remains the same—faster, higher, stronger competition. As a result, profitability becomes the central purpose of business.

This leads to extreme situations where drivers provide the entire service, yet platforms extract over 50% of the commission—only to use those profits to further enrich existing billionaires or develop self-driving technology to replace the very drivers they depend on.Why, then, do platforms seek to amass so much power and resource? Because although they appear asset-light and connection-focused, their governance logic remains unchanged: ownership and profit-maximization still reside in the hands of founding teams and capital investors. The broader logic of the capital market remains the same—faster, higher, stronger competition. As a result, profitability becomes the central purpose of business.

This leads to extreme situations where drivers provide the entire service, yet platforms extract over 50% of the commission—only to use those profits to further enrich existing billionaires or develop self-driving technology to replace the very drivers they depend on.

This proves that as long as the economic system is profit-driven, founded on ownership, and lacks mechanisms to restrain the greed and divine-self syndrome that inevitably arise when ownership is unbounded by faith, even the most well-intentioned business models will eventually degrade into exploitative structures—what we may call the “Mouse Utopia” of capitalism.This proves that as long as the economic system is profit-driven, founded on ownership, and lacks mechanisms to restrain the greed and divine-self syndrome that inevitably arise when ownership is unbounded by faith, even the most well-intentioned business models will eventually degrade into exploitative structures—what we may call the “Mouse Utopia” of capitalism.

Thus, the core problem with platform economies is not technological neutrality, but ethical and institutional design. Only by restructuring platform governance through non-possessive enterprise systems can we truly fulfill the promise of “sharing.” Platforms must become vessels for resource flow—not instruments for wealth hoarding.Thus, the core problem with platform economies is not technological neutrality, but ethical and institutional design. Only by restructuring platform governance through non-possessive enterprise systems can we truly fulfill the promise of “sharing.” Platforms must become vessels for resource flow— not instruments for wealth hoarding.

2.4   The Dilemmas of Socialism and Capitalism

Neither capitalism nor socialism has resolved a more fundamental problem: how to institutionally restrain human greed, and how to provide legitimate outlets for value and meaning in civilization.Neither capitalism nor socialism has resolved a more fundamental problem: how to institutionally restrain human greed, and how to provide legitimate outlets for value and meaning in civilization.

The greatest flaw of capitalism is its simplistic binding of ownership with value creation, treating the market as a purely rational mechanism for resource allocation—while neglecting how the logic of capital accumulation becomes self-reinforcing, ultimately leading to extreme wealth concentration and systemic inequality. Especially in the age of technological platforms and financial acceleration, capital’s pursuit of profit grows increasingly efficient, but the number of marginalized and exploited groups grows ever larger. In such a system, people are reduced to tools, relationships to contracts, and the world to commodities. Meanwhile, the suppression of “divine nature” and “the capacity to love” drives people into spiritual emptiness and social indifference.The greatest flaw of capitalism is its simplistic binding of ownership with value creation, treating the market as a purely rational mechanism for resource allocation—while neglecting how the logic of capital accumulation becomes self-reinforcing, ultimately leading to extreme wealth concentration and systemic inequality. Especially in the age of technological platforms and financial acceleration, capital’s pursuit of profit grows increasingly efficient, but the number of marginalized and exploited groups grows ever larger. In such a system, people are reduced to tools, relationships to contracts, and the world to commodities. Meanwhile, the

suppression of “divine nature” and “the capacity to love” drives people into spiritual

emptiness and social indifference.

Socialism, in its early stages, did indeed disrupt structural inequality by abolishing private monopolization of wealth and establishing a degree of social security and welfare. Yet its core dilemma lies in this: without effective incentives and meaningful containers for value creation, public ownership tends to degenerate into bureaucratic concentration. Efficiency declines into inefficiency and corruption. Especially in highly centralized political regimes, the power to allocate resources becomes a disguised form of “ownership” itself—exercising private control in the name of the collective. Lacking faith, love, and the spirit of freedom, socialism is prone to descend into oppressive collectivism, stripping individuals of the meaningful space for personal existence.Socialism, in its early stages, did indeed disrupt structural inequality by abolishing private monopolization of wealth and establishing a degree of social security and welfare. Yet its core dilemma lies in this: without effective incentives and meaningful containers for value creation, public ownership tends to degenerate into bureaucratic concentration. Efficiency declines into inefficiency and corruption. Especially in highly centralized political regimes, the power to allocate

resources becomes a disguised form of “ownership” itself—exercising private control in the name of the collective. Lacking faith, love, and the spirit of freedom, socialism is prone to descend into oppressive collectivism, stripping individuals of the meaningful space for personal existence.

In other words, capitalism distorts “freedom” into the freedom of capital, while socialism distorts “equality” into the equality of power. Neither system truly respects the human subject or the possibility of spiritual growth. Capitalism unleashes the ego in the dimension of “having”; socialism flattens individuality in the dimension of “distribution.” What both systems lack is a sense of humility before faith, institutionalized protection for love, and a profound understanding and practice of non-possessive relationships.In other words,

capitalism distorts “freedom” into the freedom of capital, while socialism distorts “equality” into the equality of power. Neither system truly respects the human subject or the possibility of spiritual growth. Capitalism unleashes the ego in the dimension of “having”; socialism flattens individuality in the dimension of “distribution.” What both systems lack is a sense of humility before faith, institutionalized protection for love, and a profound understanding and practice of non-possessive relationships.

Of course, both systems offer real advantages. Capitalism, grounded in rule of law and contracts, affirms individual value and rewards creation—this has significantly boosted wealth generation on the supply side. Yet the issue lies in the ultimate control over created value—leading to problems on the distribution side. Socialism, in its doctrinal phase, pursued fairness in distribution but denied the legitimacy of individual contribution and reward, thereby stifling creativity and weakening supply. In the absence of material incentives, planned economies become necessary—greatly reducing efficiency. Thus, both systems inevitably encounter their own contradictions and swing toward their opposites: capitalism incubates socialist ideals in hopes of reforming distribution and tends toward a larger government; socialism is forced to partially acknowledge personal initiative to enhance supply. However, both still operate on a framework of possessive evaluation. The shared result is ever-expanding governments, rising waste and inefficiency, and escalating costs of governance—leading both systems into structural impasses.Of course, both systems offer real advantages. Capitalism, grounded in rule of law and contracts, affirms individual value and rewards creation—this has significantly boosted wealth generation on the supply side. Yet the issue lies in the ultimate control over created value—leading to problems on the distribution side. Socialism, in its doctrinal phase, pursued fairness in distribution but denied the legitimacy of individual contribution and reward, thereby stifling creativity and weakening supply. In the absence of material incentives, planned economies become necessary—greatly reducing efficiency. Thus, both systems inevitably encounter their own contradictions and swing toward their opposites: capitalism incubates socialist ideals in hopes of reforming distribution and tends toward a larger government; socialism is forced to partially acknowledge personal initiative to enhance supply. However, both still operate on a framework of possessive evaluation. The shared result is ever-expanding governments, rising waste and inefficiency, and escalating costs of governance—leading both systems into structural impasses.

Therefore, we need a third path—one that respects creation while restraining possession, one that guarantees basic welfare while incentivizing diverse forms of value. This must begin from the foundation of microeconomic entities—companies—and evolve into a new institutional structure grounded in “non-possessive” logic and faith-based ethics. Only then can we transcend the twin dilemmas of capitalism and socialism.Therefore, we need a third path—one that respects creation while restraining possession, one that guarantees basic welfare while incentivizing diverse forms of value. This must begin from the foundation of microeconomic entities—companies—and evolve into a new institutional structure grounded in “non-possessive” logic and faith-based ethics. Only then can we transcend the twin dilemmas of capitalism and socialism.

2.5   Market Risk Arising from the Structural Opposition Between Consumers and Enterprises

In the prevailing capitalist enterprise system, ownership is concentrated in the hands of enterprises and their shareholders. Employees participate as wage laborers, while customers serve as the ultimate source of profits. Although on the surface, enterprises must meet customer needs to survive, this structural design is inherently adversarial and lacks the essence of a community. Consumers sustain businesses with their spending, yet they are excluded from profit-sharing and have no direct channel to supervise or influence the development of products and services.In the prevailing capitalist enterprise system, ownership is concentrated in the hands of enterprises and their shareholders. Employees participate as wage laborers, while customers serve as the ultimate source of profits.

Although on the surface, enterprises must meet customer needs to survive, this structural design is inherently adversarial and lacks the essence of a community. Consumers sustain businesses with their spending, yet they are excluded from profit-sharing and have no direct channel to supervise or influence the development of products and services.

This institutional opposition generates profound structural inefficiencies. Without direct access to consumers’ real intentions, enterprises must rely heavily on market research, branding strategies, and speculative innovation to infer customer needs. This guesswork results in a proliferation of products and services that fail to resonate with the market, wasting enormous financial and human resources. Ultimately, the cost of this inefficiency is borne by the consumer in the form of higher prices.This institutional opposition generates profound structural inefficiencies. Without direct access to consumers’ real intentions, enterprises must rely heavily on market research, branding strategies, and speculative innovation to infer customer needs. This guesswork results in a proliferation of products and services that fail to resonate with the market, wasting enormous financial and human resources. Ultimately, the cost of this inefficiency is borne by the consumer in the form of higher prices.

Moreover, consumer power is restricted to "selection" rather than "participation." They cannot directly influence corporate strategy or design, and their only leverage is through market exit—choosing alternative products. However, due to time lags in market feedback, companies often realize too late that they have lost consumer favor. This delay results in excess inventory, periodic downturns, or even bankruptcies, creating ripple effects that consume significant social resources and generate systemic instability.Moreover, consumer power is restricted to "selection" rather than "participation." They cannot directly influence corporate strategy or design, and their only leverage is through market exit—choosing alternative products. However, due to time lags in market feedback, companies often realize too late that they have lost consumer favor. This delay results in excess inventory, periodic downturns, or even bankruptcies, creating ripple effects that consume significant social resources and generate systemic instability.

From a systemic perspective, this is a lose-lose-lose arrangement: enterprises are burdened with uncertainty and volatility, consumers pay a premium for inefficiency and lack of agency, and society suffers from misallocated resources and economic turbulence. The core issue lies in the institutional architecture that separates ownership, usage, and labor while treating customers as external to the value-creation ecosystem.From a systemic perspective, this is a lose-lose-lose arrangement: enterprises are burdened with uncertainty and volatility, consumers pay a premium for inefficiency and lack of agency, and society suffers from misallocated resources and economic turbulence. The core issue lies in the institutional architecture that separates ownership, usage, and labor while treating customers as external to the value-creation ecosystem.

To resolve this structural opposition and enhance efficiency, a new framework is needed— one grounded in the principle of non-possession. By breaking the binary of enterprise versus customer and designing mechanisms that integrate consumers as co-creators and governance participants, we can transcend the risk-laden inefficiencies of the current system and move toward a more sustainable economic paradigm.To resolve this structural opposition and enhance efficiency, a new framework is needed—one grounded in the principle of non-possession. By breaking the binary of enterprise versus customer and designing mechanisms that integrate consumers as co-creators and governance participants, we can transcend the risk-laden inefficiencies of the current system and move toward a more sustainable economic paradigm.

2.6   Returning to Faith, Restructuring Institutions: Introducing the "Non-Possessive" Mechanism

After witnessing the alienation of wealth into instruments of vanity and control, the rise of exploitative platform economies, the structural pitfalls of both socialism and capitalism, and the growing antagonism between consumers and enterprises, it becomes evident that a new institutional paradigm must emerge. This paradigm must address not only the dual crises of efficiency and justice but also return to the sacred foundation of economic life: to serve people with integrity and purpose.After witnessing the alienation of wealth into instruments of vanity and control, the rise of exploitative platform economies, the structural pitfalls of both socialism and capitalism, and the growing antagonism between consumers and enterprises, it becomes evident that a new institutional paradigm must emerge. This paradigm must address not only the dual crises of efficiency and justice but also return to the sacred foundation of economic life: to serve people with integrity and purpose.

At the heart of our modern institutional dysfunction lies the idolatry of ownership. Ownership is treated not only as the certificate of legitimate capital accumulation but also as the means to control resources and lives. When corporate ownership and governance are concentrated in the hands of investors and executives, laborers become instrumentalized and consumers are reduced to profit-yielding entities. This design produces inequality, detaches individuals from economic participation, and creates enormous inefficiencies and systemic risks due to information asymmetry and conflicting interests.At the heart of our

modern institutional dysfunction lies the idolatry of ownership. Ownership is treated not only as the certificate of legitimate capital accumulation but also as the means to control resources and lives. When corporate ownership and governance are concentrated in the hands of investors and executives, laborers become instrumentalized and consumers are reduced to profit-yielding entities. This design produces inequality, detaches individuals from economic participation, and creates enormous inefficiencies and systemic risks due to information asymmetry and conflicting interests.

To move forward, we must transcend the dichotomy of socialist public ownership and capitalist private ownership by constructing a new model: the Non-Possessive Mechanism. This mechanism does not reject private property but imposes ethical limits on ownership based on spiritual principles. It introduces structural boundaries on wealth accumulation and establishes a co-beneficial architecture between consumers and enterprises— transforming consumers from external market participants into internal co-owners and value recipients.To move forward, we must transcend the dichotomy of socialist public ownership and capitalist private ownership by constructing a new model: the Non- Possessive Mechanism. This mechanism does not reject private property but imposes ethical limits on ownership based on spiritual principles. It introduces structural boundaries on wealth accumulation and establishes a co-beneficial architecture between consumers and enterprises—transforming consumers from external market participants into internal co-owners and value recipients.

The Non-Possessive Mechanism is both a call from faith and a response through institution. It redefines the economy not as an arena for moral-free competition but as a collective practice of stewardship. It reimagines the firm not as a capital-driven machine but as a vessel of service. It reorients wealth not as an end but as a byproduct of meaningful connection.The Non-Possessive Mechanism is both a call from faith and a response through institution. It redefines the economy not as an arena for moral-free competition but as a collective practice of stewardship. It reimagines the firm not as a capital-driven machine but as a vessel of service. It reorients wealth not as an end but as a byproduct of meaningful connection.

The next chapter will explore the theoretical foundations, institutional design, and practical implementation of the Non-Possessive Mechanism in detail.The next chapter will explore the theoretical foundations, institutional design, and practical implementation of the Non- Possessive Mechanism in detail.